Comments on Best Historical Fiction - page 4

there is nothing to fear but fear itelf

there is nothing to fear but fear itelf

Crime and Punishment? Wuthering Heights? 1984? The Bell Jar? Not historical fiction, I don't think.

Not so sure about Age of Innocence, My Antonia and Death Comes for the Archbishop.

Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee? Not fiction.

I have no power to remove these and many others, but maybe someone else does.

Goodreads All Sorts: http://www.goodreads.com/group/show/9...

Hi everyone,

I have created a new group called Goodreads All Sorts and I'd love for people to join it or just even just give it a look. It's a group that discusses anything and everything. There will be monthly group reads, movies, and music. There is a folder for everything you could think of. I'd really like if people could spread the word because I'd love for the group to be a success. Here is the link to the group:

http://www.goodreads.com/group/show/9...

Thanks very much,
Jack :-)

Jack wrote: "Hi everyone,

I have created a new group called Goodreads All Sorts and I'd love for people to join it or just even just give it a look. It's a group that discusses anything and everything. There w..."

spamming on listopia is not a good move Jack, but I will trot over to your gaff for a gander.

John wrote: "My Antonia and Death Comes for the Archbishop"

Death Comes for the Archbishop does belong on the list, My Antonia doesn't. Death is set at least 50 years prior to the time it was written, and it contains real live historical people like Kit Carson.

It looks like someone removed Amsterdam which is excellent.

By the way if you want a book removed, it's extremely helpful if you indicate what page it's on.

Removed Crime and Punishment.

Great list

The first page pretty much have the best historical fictions of all time. Or so I heard.

Mrs. wrote: ""Night" is NOT historical fiction. It's not even fiction ... it's the true story of Elie Wiesel's experiences during the Holocaust. So historical non-fiction would be a better category for it, evne..."
"Night" is up toward the top of the listopia for memoirs. And you are correct of course, it's not fiction. That is one of the things that makes it so powerful.

Jennifer wrote: "I just ran across this list and found it very interesting. I agree with many of the previous comments about not everything on this list REALLY being historical fiction, but it is a good list of bo..."
It's always easy to find books about royalty (though not always accurate, & I am not a good source for those books). I have a keen interest in the history of the working class, and these are people who are often disenfranchised, just as individual histories of Blacks in the Jim Crow south are hard to find. It is because one way that discrimination disenfranchises people, is by erasing them. You wouldn't believe how many NONfiction books about the building of the American transcontinental railroad I had to read before I found even the mention of Chinese workers. And so it goes. Let me hear if you have any great historical fiction or nonfiction in this area; I read what I can find, but am always looking for more.

Roots: it is listed both as historical fiction and as nonfiction and also memoir at various sections of these lists. I always thought it was nonfiction (Alex Haley) and memoir, but that the TV miniseries was considered based on the truth, since we see actors instead of the individuals themselves. Can any of our experts out there elucidate? If it is indeed historical fiction, I'll vote for it and vote high, but I suspect it doesn't belong here.

Roots is definitely a novel. Historical fiction.

Thom wrote: "WILL SOMEONE WITH SMARTS AND SKILLS PLEASE PLEASE PRUNE THIS LIST DOWN TO HISTORICAL FICTION. Without limitation, no definition. As Alan Turing famously said, Information is Entropy (Boundless info..."
I'm thinking The Odyssey has no business being here, either. Classic poetry, yes; historical fiction, not so much. Fiction is prose. I have the chops to pull them out,but would like permission from the list's original composer, or news that said person doesn't mind other librarians nosing in, or that the person is no longer a Goodreads user. Then I will be happy to prune.

I'm down as list owner, although I have no memory of creating this list, only voting on it, and would like to be able to remove my name from it. Donna, feel free to prune away if you wish!

Jim wrote: "Michael Shaara can really bring history to life. Not terribly accurate, but puts the reader in the action. NOT his son/s books."
Nevertheless, it is historical fiction. You shouldn't vote for it if you don't enjoy it, but that is the category under which those books fall.

I see several books here that I won't vote for, have read, and yes, they ARE where they belong. That's sort of the point of voting.

I have a real issue with Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee, which the Goodreads synopsis identifies as history. I will zap that one if I can get the edit button to come up. I have to enter under the librarian tab to get it to do that. Sooner or later, that one comes down.

Susanna wrote: "It was not "set in a historical period" for Jane Austen! Miss Austen was writing about her own time. If you're writing about your own time, how is it historical fiction? It isn't."

When in doubt, the reader can always open a second Goodreads window, or a major book seller's, and see when the book was originally published. If that time period matches, or is immediately after, the time period in which the story is set, it should not be deemed historical fiction.

Lobstergirl wrote: "John wrote: "My Antonia and Death Comes for the Archbishop"

Death Comes for the Archbishop does belong on the list, My Antonia doesn't. Death is set at least 50 years prior to the time it was wri..."

It is entirely possible for something to be historical fiction and yet refer to actual people. There is an historical fiction novel titled "Lincoln" and I looked it up. Yes, it is a work of historical fiction based upon Lincoln and his presidency but containing all manner of fictitious individuals.

Lobstergirl wrote: "Roots is definitely a novel. Historical fiction."

Right you are. I checked Amazon's description (apologies for using the "A" word). Those who dropped it into memoirs were the ones who were mistaken.

Deleted the latter part of my last comment because it was stupid. I had misread the subscript. 50 years it is.

All right, I removed some. Some are on the borderline, so I left them alone for others to sort out. Also, I only edited the first 400. Please be aware, if you are not a librarian, that it takes HOURS to verify the inclusion of a number of books that may or may not pass the 50-year test, depending on when they were FIRST published. If you are feeling cranky because some slipped through (and I only checked those that others had mentioned or that I wondered about, which means that if I have never heard of a particular book and nothing in the title sounded contemporary, I did not check it; a woman could grow old and die doing that)! Please feel free to request librarianship if you are itching to go in and remove books, bearing in mind that it you are trusted to verify and take care.

Others: please DO NOT ADD a book UNLESS you know for certain that 50 years stood between the book's ORIGINAL publication date (often printed in a muted color on the Goodreads description, while the most recent publication will be bolded), and its setting.

Deleted for not being historical fiction:

Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee--nonfiction
The Odyssey and the Iliad--classical poetry

Deleted for not being within the 50 year framework specifically denoted in the subscript of this listopia:

My Antonia 1900 orig. pub. Setting late 1800's.

To Kill a Mockingbird 1960 pub. 1935 setting

All Quiet on the Western Front 1929 pub. setting 1914, 1916

The Watsons Go to Birmingham 2000 pub. setting 1963
(also juvenile lit., but I would not have deleted it for that reason, and have let other juvenile lit stand if it met other criteria).

The Help pub. 2009 setting 1962

The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, published 1884, set 1840

Right on the borderline...I will let others evaluate and decide:

The Secrets of the Yaya Sisterhood published 1996, "3 generations" made me leave it in, thinking a generation is 20 years, but I will confess I did not research the meaning of "generation", so if you have time and patience to find out, feel free.

Also not sure: 11/22/63 by Stephen King Published 2011...wow, super close! Someone else decide!

My error: meant to zap "Secret Life of Bees", set "in the 1960's" and published 2002. Someone w librarian powers who is going in for something else, please delete, but if not, I will come back later.
__________________________________________

To save someone else some work, these have been checked and should live:

Water for Elephants: set in Depression but also in present (I am assuming that w/multiple settings, either the dominant setting stands, or if there are multiple settings we give it the benefit of the doubt).

Also squeaked by: The Joy Luck Club, set 1949, published 2006.

Note: I was dying to add Catch-22, but again, publication date disqualifies. Moral: always check, if you are adding. If you are not a librarian and just voting, please let us know if something pops out, you've checked, and it doesn't qualify, or seek librarian status and do it yourself. The reason I first became a librarian was because of a badly misused listopia that I was ambitious enough, and had time enough, to clean up.

Oh, well. I went back to finish voting, and on the 500 page I found Cheaper By the Dozen, orig. published 1948. Removed.

For those wondering: The Amazing Adventures if Kavalier and Clay qualifies. Pub. 2000, set during WWII.

Removing Slaughterhouse 5 (Vonnegut). Yes, it is set during an historical period, but once your protagonists are aliens, you're out of the historical fictional ballpark. Also gone for not being historical fiction:

Hamlet

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

And I find myself wondering about the Octavia Butler title "Kindred", because I know she generally wrote science fiction, but I am worn out and letting it go for now. I had headed into uncharted territory w/the intention of voting and leaving, but titles such as those shown above just can't be there. I understand some of the mistakes--in fact, before I had to delete "To Kill a Mockingbird", I voted for it! But everyone should be aware that once a novel clearly features the supernatural as its raison d'etre, it becomes either sci fi or fantasy (or religion), but not historical fiction. So far the only exception has been Allende, because (I think) she focuses more on the historical, and who is to say her relative didn't levitate anymore than someone else can say theirs went to heaven? She doesn't generally make the supernatural an integral part of her plots. She has an historical storyline going and now and then sucker-punches us with the green-haired relative who levitated, and then she goes back to her story. I confess I don't know where to put her, but if others put her here, I don't feel it's my place to say otherwise.

Jen wrote: "I don't think people are understanding what historical fiction is. If a book was written in the 1800's and it is based in that time frame, then would you consider it historical fiction? I would no..."

I agree

Is Peter Ackroyd in this list? Brilliant stylist, knows when to spin a tale and when to stick to documents, never betrays the spirit of a time or the evidence of tried texts.

As Susannah noted, to be historical fiction, it has to be fiction (i.e., not a biography or memoir, not poetry) and it has to be WRITTEN 50 years or more later than the time in which it took place.

I removed a couple of the last Ingalls-Wilder series because she came within the 50 year rule. That series (apart from her autobiography, which is identified as such) is indeed fiction. She herself said so. The whole "Little House" series, which countless school teachers read to their classes as if it were actual history, is fiction based on her own experiences. This came into the public arena many years ago when a naturalist criticized the passage in which one of the menfolk says he was chased by a wolf. The naturalist wrote to her and pointed out that wolves don't really do that, and she tartly responded that she was unaware that she had written any history books; she was writing stories for little children. Thus, any of the FIRST of the "Little House" series that is within the 50-year rule should stand, unless all children's books are eliminated, in which case a bunch of other stuff has to go, too, and I won't be the one to take them out.

Removed for obvious reasons: The Stieg Larsson books. Heavens. Removing Brave New World. Also removed:

The U.S. Constitution (kind of a cynical thing to add here!)

Ender's Shadow, by Orson Scott Card

A Time to Kill, by John Grisham

The Yellow Wallpaper, by Charlotte Perkins Gilman (50 yr rule)

The Jungle, by Upton Sinclair (ditto)

The Hunt for Red October, by Tom Clancy (same)

Twilight! Is there a troll out there who just adds this book to every list for kicks?

I had made a note to myself to remove Stephen King's Misery from page 15, but when I got back to it I couldn't find it anywhere from pp. 14-17, so assume someone else got there first. Thanks!


On a more positive note, the list has grown and developed really well since I was here last. There's a lot more actual historical fiction, a lot of it work I think is wonderful, and I look forward to revisiting my votes with so many more excellent choices brought forward. Thanks to all who thoughtfully contributed.

Itala T. wrote: "Is Peter Ackroyd in this list? Brilliant stylist, knows when to spin a tale and when to stick to documents, never betrays the spirit of a time or the evidence of tried texts."

Itala T. wrote: "Is Peter Ackroyd in this list? Brilliant stylist, knows when to spin a tale and when to stick to documents, never betrays the spirit of a time or the evidence of tried texts."


Hawksmoor

How do you classify authors who do little rsearch do not care if they supplant, not merely embroider historically uncontested data? I believe histrical fiction should enrich history, not mislead. I think in this case, it should be called fantasy. ESPECIALLY because many do not read or know history. I am thinking of a fabulously popular and sensationalistic writer who writes on Renaissane and Medie al religious themes.

Fantasy is different from historical fiction. I hope neither S King nor Dan Brown are on this list. In the latter`s case he is making slanderous charges and is protected by calling it historical fiction.

BAD historical fiction should just be not-voted-for, and of course, you also have this forum to say what you think of that, which both of you have so wisely used. However, if it does fall into the genre of historical fiction in any way, shape, or form, without obviously being predominately and intentionally science fiction, fantasy, poetry, or some obviously OTHER genre, librarians are not given license to go in and remove it. The rules are very clear. We cannot remove a book for being stupid, only for being unmistakably misplaced.

King was there at one point, and then he wasn't. He writes more than horror, but no hst. fiction, and if you see his work there, please make a note of the page. There are 32 pp. of books here, which is awesome, but most of your librarians including yours truly are volunteers, and we don't have time to go through every single page more than once (if that; I did it ONCE). If you find him on page 22 and say so, I will check page 22, & if I don't find him, I will check the pages before and after (so, 21 and 23) in case enough votes have come in to knock him up or down a page.

Note: I checked the first 5 pages and son of a gun, there was King's 1963. I would have left it alone since it crosses over into an historical topic (Kennedy's assassination) but it failed to meet the 50 year rule, so by two scant years, the only King book that could conceivably cross over into historical fiction went doowwwn. Also, The Iliad is off the list.

If you believe you are qualified to be a Goodreads librarian (I have a language arts teaching credential, so they let me in), submit a request and you can clean up the list yourself. If you are accepted as a librarian, they will tell you so; if you aren't, your request will simply disappear into an endless void, or so I am told. I have no authority over this, as it is the owner's policy.

Thank you, Donna. S. King is a unique writer, who respects boundaries, and weaves fabulous tales. I wish he would write historical fiction, because he would not misrepresent, even when adding fantastical details. There are so many talented writers of historical fiction: however, the poorly educated prefer what they absorb from electronic media, which has formed their taste and standards, including preference for the sloppy and banally sensational.

Itala T. wrote: "Thank you, Donna. S. King is a unique writer, who respects boundaries, and weaves fabulous tales. I wish he would write historical fiction, because he would not misrepresent, even when adding fanta..."
Then again, one might argue that maybe some of these readers would not read anything if their only choices were Shakespeare and Dante. I completely agree with your take on King. I love his work, & think he is underrated by many people, but I think he would be the first to agree with you that hist. fiction is not his field.

Donna wrote: "Also, The Iliad is off the list."

I actually wonder about this one. Though we do not know the exact time frame, Homer supposedly wrote The Illiad and The Odyssey about 400 years after the events took place. Would that not make them historical fiction?

Donna wrote: "Itala T. wrote: "Thank you, Donna. S. King is a unique writer, who respects boundaries, and weaves fabulous tales. I wish he would write historical fiction, because he would not misrepresent, even ..."

Donna, it might be people would not read Shakespeare, Dante or Da Vinci straight, but historical fiction respecting the main points of their lives and ideology is available. Interpretation and diffusion is the goal of most writing, even nonfiction. I suggest Primo Levi, "If not Now, When?' as hist. fiction about former inmates of concentration camps.

Kirsten wrote: "Donna wrote: "Also, The Iliad is off the list."

I actually wonder about this one. Though we do not know the exact time frame, Homer supposedly wrote The Illiad and The Odyssey about 400 years afte..."

I guess Iliad and Odyssey would not qualify as they were composed orally, maybe by a variety of bards following in Homer's steps. But if we are to include all historical fiction, maybe the prose rule shd be suspended for ancient works?

I think they are considered history, but it's moot, since the subtext of the list states "novels", so anything written in poetry form is out. Otherwise, interesting question...if history is that which is written, what if it's written later than the earliest recognized history? That was Gilgamesh, or so my professors told me when I was a freshman (and the wheel was not yet invented, and dinosaurs roamed the earth).

Donna wrote: "Jennifer wrote: "I just ran across this list and found it very interesting. I agree with many of the previous comments about not everything on this list REALLY being historical fiction, but it is ..."

Iain Pears, The Instance of the Fingerpost, deals with peasants and the urban underclass, why it is one of my favorites. Peter Ackroyd, Elizabeth Cree, depicts the music hall world,seamstresses and occasional prostitutes along with a reconstruction of Limehouse/Jack Ripper murders.

Donna wrote: "I think they are considered history, but it's moot, since the subtext of the list states "novels", so anything written in poetry form is out. Otherwise, interesting question...if history is that wh..."

Hmm, maybe the title of the list should state that this is for Historical Fiction novels. Shakespeare has certainly written historical fiction, yet with these specifications none of his works could be included on this list. In fact, the novel was not even invented until the 18th century, so anything "historical fiction" that was written before that point would not be included on this list.

Kirsten wrote: "Donna wrote: "I think they are considered history, but it's moot, since the subtext of the list states "novels", so anything written in poetry form is out. Otherwise, interesting question...if hist..."

You could argue that historical fiction was written before the 18th century, if you consider Roman, Chinese, Nordic and Japanese contributions..but when it is so exotic, the genre boundaries don't hold so firmly.

For that matter, Gilgamesh was history, but it was not historical fiction. It was an ancient telling of a thing that happened. I would not care to lend my admittedly limited librarian-talents to a work printed in Chinese, Nordic, or Japanese at all, though I could probably get someone else to help me with the latter.

This opens up an interesting question: when did the genre of historical fiction first become popular, and in what language?

Kirsten wrote: "Donna wrote: "I think they are considered history, but it's moot, since the subtext of the list states "novels", so anything written in poetry form is out. Otherwise, interesting question...if hist..."
If you go back and look at what the original list-maker wrote right underneath the title of the list--i.e., the subscript or subtext, as before mentioned--it does stipulate novels. If you wanted to start another listopia and have it include all historical fictional writings including poetry, you could do that, and state as much in your subtext.

The subtext is honored by those who use (and clean up) the list unless it is so badly thought out that it is impossible. I saw this just once. The time it became unmanageable was in a mystery listopia in which the subtext ordered the users to submit only the first novel in a series, if the novel was in a mystery series. The problem there was that not everyone had read the first of the series, and maybe it was even out of print or hard to get, but they (I should say, WE) wanted to honor the writer's work anyway. The maker of the list had since withdrawn from the site, leaving it wide open, and nobody bothered to try and enforce that unworkable stipulation. It's the only time I have seen (mind you, I've only been here about a year, but am a frequent user) the list's subtext just be tossed out by general agreement.

Gilgamesh is historically based and Tale of Genji or Beowulf have origin in events that occured as does the Bible. Historical novels are a genre apart I suppose. I was referring to translated works.

Right. And when you get into really old texts, it can be fuzzy as to whether something is regarded as historical fiction or history. I know I was assigned to read The Epic of Gilgamesh for a history class back in college. Ancient history has never been my very favorite, but I am more interested in it than I used to be.

For the purposes of this site, of course, I stick strictly to the rules as written in the librarian's manual and where feasible (so usually), the listopia's criteria as specified. Once something has been deleted, there is no way to put all the votes back in that were cast for it (if any), so I am very, very careful not to toss something out that might conceivably belong right where it is.

Hello Donna. I am perfectly aware of what the subtext of the list states. Because I am aware of it, I made the suggestion that the title of the list is misleading. Even the subtext is misleading as it tells us that the list is for "The best of historical fiction. Historical fiction are novels that re-create a period or event in history and often use historical figures as some of its characters." This subtext defines historical fiction AS novels -- it does not state that the list is for novels that are historical fiction. It does not state explicitly that one should only vote for historical fiction novels -- instead it assumes that all historical fiction is in novel form. Also, please be aware that you are not the only Goodreads librarian who is monitoring this list, and it might behoove you to read comments a little more carefully and without a negative initial mindset before you respond with a brazen accusation.

Kirsten wrote: "Hello Donna. I am perfectly aware of what the subtext of the list states. Because I am aware of it, I made the suggestion that the title of the list is misleading. Even the subtext is misleading as..."
Good god! "Brazen". Well, color me scarlet. I don't write the subtext, and as far as I know, its content is up to the list maker. Yes, I know other librarians are here, as well they should be. I thought you were a new person who wasn't reading the subtext. I am just a volunteer. Take me out back and horsewhip me for trying to help!

Donna wrote: "Kirsten wrote: "Hello Donna. I am perfectly aware of what the subtext of the list states. Because I am aware of it, I made the suggestion that the title of the list is misleading. Even the subtext ..."

Well I can tell you that Goodreads Librarians have the option to edit the title and subtext of a list, but I have not done it myself nor did I suggest it here because I feel that could be considered an imposition to the person who created the list. But the comment section on Listopia lists exists so that people can make comments on the list itself, and my comment was that the title is misleading. Understand that to some people it can be offensive to be told that their comment is WRONG, as it certainly seemed you were stating about my comment. I never said that it was your responsibility to re-write the subtext. I was simply adding to the ongoing discussion about the list itself and how it should be handled to be as accurate as possible.

Best of luck to you. This is the kind of thing that burns volunteers out. I'm done with this particular listopia. For the life of me I can't see why you didn't just start your own list instead of trying to pick this one apart, but I hope it works out for you.

Donna wrote: "For the life of me I can't see why you didn't just start your own list instead of t..."

Goodreads strongly frowns upon creating duplicate lists, and it would be much more productive to hash out an agreed upon guideline for this list, which is already in use, than to create a new list with slightly altered wording (which would probably be deleted by Goodreads staff, anyway). It is common for members to use the comments section on lists to determine how they should vote for books in the list, or to seek clarification from the lists' creator.